Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of TV Guide covers


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was no consensus for deletion, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

List of TV Guide covers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Wikipedia is not a directory. Will (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a highly relevant list because who was on the cover reflects what was important in television (or in later years, society in general) at the time.  If this page is deleted, what other lists will have to go?  Certainly the list of Playboy centerfolds.  That is essentially the same list as this one.  (They even began the same year.)  Same for List_of_SLAM_Magazine_cover_athletes, a page that is 2 1/2 years old and has hundreds of edits.  How about List_of_celebrities_who_have_appeared_on_the_cover_of_Rolling_Stone_magazine, a less structured list than the TV Guide one, but which has had over 100 edits.  If any list of magazine cover subjects should go, perhaps it should be List_of_people_of_Indian_origin_to_be_featured_on_the_cover_page_of_Time_magazine.  There are lots of relevant questions that can be answered from the list of TV Guide covers, such as frequency of particular celebrities appearing on the cover and their range of years, popularity and earliest and latest appearance of particular artists, etc.  Nearly every person who has ever been pictured on the cover of TV Guide has an entry in Wikipedia.  All of this suggests that the List of TV Guide covers page is highly relevant to Wikipedia and should be retained.  If anything, similar pages ought to be created for other magazines, such as the New Yorker and Sports Illustrated.Bellczar (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The only other reason that is given above, which might carry weight, is a claim that this specific magazine was so significant (so to speak) that its cover choice record was notable in and of itself. That's possible but would need some supporting. FT2 (Talk 00:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, all these articles should go to AFD. Secret account 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Those other ones should be prod tagged first, then nominated if that fails. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm glad that this one hasn't gotten up and running. It's a noble idea, to list 2,500+ subjects (or whatever 55 years worth times 52 weeks), but I disagree that chronological lists of who was on the cover of Time, Newsweek, Sports Illustrated, etc. is a means of showing who was famous at a particular point in time.  All it shows is who, among many candidates, was chosen to be on the cover of a magazine during a particular week in history.  Who was on the cover is, something that magazine websites frequently do as part of their own promotion.  Mandsford (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Userfy and let him work on it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hate to offer that type of encouragement on a massive project, without some suggestions as to how it might work. The author has set this up on a trial basis, holding off on doing the whole project until he or she can see what the reception would be.  To the author, if it were me, I would arrange it based on who was on the cover, say, from Bud Abbott to Daryl Zanuck, rather than chronologically.  Again, it's not a slice of life that's being achieved here.  It's only a record of which person had a "cover story" in TV guide in a particular issue. Mandsford (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above -- TV Guide was not just any magazine, it was a cultural icon, a place where stars would "make it big" after appearing on the cover. Yes, it's a long, daunting task, but it should be given a chance. And I consider it encyclopedic in nature, as Tv Guide is a mere shell of its former self today (personally, very hardly that). -- azumanga (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - which TV guide anyway?--Docg 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOT, anyways no reason on why being on a T.V guide cover is a claim of notabilty for all these actors or actress, yes T.V guide is a cultural icon and still is, but the covers doesn't make it a icon. Secret account 00:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably delete (needs specific discussion of one point) Many lists are encyclopedic and apt. A list of which person was on each cover of a magazine, for each weekly issue in its history, is probably not. The criteria of "not an indiscriminate collection" (WP:NOT) comes into play. A magazine that has to position a different celebrity each 7 days is almost surely driven more by the need to have a cover picture than to select "discriminatingly" as to notability. More to the point, whilst the people may be notable or the magazine, no good argument has been made that the list of cover celebs is notable. "List of people on covers of X publication" is not inherently notable for all or even most publications (a point made above); this one doesn't seem especially notable either. The main "keep" views are centered around four cases of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, "highly relevant" (WP:USEFUL, WP:INTERESTING refer), and ""if we delete this what happens to other pages" and "individuals are notable so a list that contains them is notable". None of these are actually AFD reasons that carry weight under community norms for AFD.
 * May I respond to the anon who posted probably delete: Considering there were only about 60-80 shows on the big 3 networks at any particular time, it is significant that the same people and shows were repeatedly on the cover, considering they could have featured nearly every show on TV in the course of a year just by running through them. For example, Mary Tyler Moore was on the cover twice in 1973 alone.  Lucille Ball was on the cover about once a year while she was actively making series and periodically thereafter.  I think the case can be made that being featured on the cover was evidence of notability.  It is worth repeating that nearly every person ever pictured on the cover of TV Guide has an entry in Wikipedia.
 * I should also point out that the list contains not only cover subjects but also artists (photographers/illustrators) and it is significant that some were featured frequently (e.g., Richard Amsel, who was also a famous movie-poster artist; Al Hirschfeld, who illustrations were on the covers over a span of more than 40 years).Bellczar (talk) 03:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But how does that evidence that the magazine cover list was notable? Those people were listed in many many places - but the focus in this article is "magazine X covers". For example, many non-notable magazines would have had photos of celebrities on the cover, and these people would have been on the covers of many magazines too. But notability is WP:NOTINHERITED... What I'm seeing is more, the argument that "the people are notable, so cover lists they were included in were notable". But it doesn't work that way. The issue is whether the magazine's coverlist itself was notable as a coverlist. Do we have evidence that people talked about "making it on the cover of TV guide" in the sense that they might have once talked about making it on the cover of Life, or winning an Oscar, or getting a Nobel prize (so to speak), ie, where the cover itself was notable and it's prestige is such as to make someone notable just for having been there, for example? Or as described above, was this specific magazine so significant (so to speak) that its cover choice record was notable in and of itself . Not just "another magazine with pictures of famous people". FT2 (Talk 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. I have read in several articles or books about TV series that the cast was excited to be on the cover of TVG, which had the largest circulation of any magazine for many years.  It was widely read in the industry.  There were also jealousies fueled among minor cast members about how much visibility one minor player or another was getting from the cover.  This suggests that making the cover is valuable in itself.Bellczar (talk) 09:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But where's the cited evidence on this? This is mostly personal claims, and AFD needs cited evidence. A statement "I have read" isn't evidence of standing, nor is anecdote that people were "excited" or "got visibility" or "discussed how much visibility they got" from it. That it was widely read and published does not mean its cover list was in and of itself notable; many magazines are widely published whose cover details by issue are probably not. It would need exactly what is stated - evidence from third party reliable sources, that this magazine's cover list had enough significance (so to speak) that its cover choice history was notable in and of itself . FT2 (Talk 15:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a directory. Most of the page is empty and seeing as there's a TV guide released frequently, the list would be undoubtedly endless... Spawn Man Review Me! 11:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this is "directory" in its worst form. Also, it is "original research" and/or "synthesis" to argue that every single person that appears on the front of a magazine have equally benefitted. I would have no problem with mentioning a person's appearance on a major magazine cover in that person's own article, but this list is not right. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 05:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Appropriate historical information. Not OR--the interpretation of it by the reader is up the reader. -- & I would have thought that the cultural significance of what is on the cover of TV Guide is obvious enough, at least to me. Making the cover is of significance in itself, and is mentioned in most articles about the people represented there. (That's why the magazine has an editorial staff?) If the article is incomplete, thats reason to complete it, not remove it, one of the few times I have ever seen actually advocating on afd the removal of an incomplete article with substantial content because it had not yet been finished! DGG (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Encyclopedic, the TV Guide article itself does a good job asserting the magazine's cultural impact and the significance of being on the cover. Obviously, such an assertion does not belong in the list itself. Though the implication that each cover is "equally beneficial" to the featured individuals would obviously be OR (and absurd...) no such conclusion is implied by the list. It's a little bewildering to me how a simple record and list can be construed as OR, as by its nature there's no analysis or synthesis going on there...Orphic (talk) 06:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Several above have argued that TV Guide covers are culturally significant and notable, so allow me to present several reliable sources to prove it: TV Guide covers are the subject of news articles ("Not enough stars for TV Guide covers", "The autocrat of the coffee table: TV Guide, America's favorite coaster, becomes history in spite of itself", "Collector is hooked on TV Guides", and over a thousand news articles containing the phrases "TV Guide cover(s)" or "Cover(s) of TV Guide"), academic papers ("Ignoring Change: An Evaluation of TV Guide Covers, 1970-1979"), books (The Covers of TV Guide', 'TV Guide The Official Collectors Guide: Celebrating An Icon, Changing Channels: America in TV Guide), and museum exhibits ("TV Guide and The Museum of Broadcast Communications Join Forces", "Museum as Reprieve From the Recycling Bin; From Coffee-Table Clutter to Coveted Collectible")! DHowell (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.